I am a Senior Political Contributor at Forbes and the official 'token lefty,' as the title of the page suggests. However, writing from the 'left of center' should not be confused with writing for the left as I often annoy progressives just as much as I upset conservative thinkers. In addition to the pages of Forbes.com, you can find me every Saturday morning on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and at various other times during the week serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows. I also serve as a Democratic strategist with Mercury Public Affairs.

Ted Cruz-The Reincarnation Of Joe McCarthy?

For a politician seeking power at any cost, there are few tricks in the handbook more effective than the employment of innuendo, false implication and guilt by association—tricks that were once perfected to devastating effect by Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin senator who rose to extraordinary power through his mastery of these dark arts as he led the United States down the path to one of its darkest hours.

McCarthy learned the value of the half-truth and innuendo early on in his career.

In his first political campaign for a seat as a circuit county judge, McCarthy published campaign literature falsely claiming that his opponent was 73, senile and guilty of financial corruption—despite knowing that the gentleman was 66, in full control of his mental faculties and had never done anything that had so much as a whiff of corruption.

But it worked.

Indeed, it worked so well that during McCarthy’s next campaign, which was a primary race for his party’s nomination to run for the U.S. Senate, McCarthy perfected the science of dirty politics by moving away from the complete and total lie and into the more subtle art of innuendo and half-truths as he attacked his opponent, Robert La Follette, for not enlisting in the war effort during World War II.

McCarthy was technically correct, as La Follette was already 46 when Pearl Harbor was bombed and far too old to be accepted into the U.S. armed forces. McCarthy, of course, didn’t bother to mention that detail and the misdirection took a toll. McCarthy would go on to allege that La Follette had made huge profits—suggesting by implication that the man had been guilty of war profiteering—while Joe was out there fighting the war. Again, it was true that La Follette had made money during the war, however it was certainly not from war profiteering but rather from a local radio station in which he had invested.

Joseph Raymond McCarthy. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Again, McCarthy’s low tactics worked as he eked out a narrow victory. La Follette went away from the race deeply injured by the attacks on his reputation—attacks that were believed by many despite being wholly untrue— and eventually committed suicide.

McCarthy never looked back as the smear tactics employed during his campaigns would pale in comparison to what he would do when applying his despicable brand of politics to what we would come to know as “McCarthyism”—the use of the smear against fellow Americans whom he sought to paint as Communists, destroying the lives of innocents to further the fortunes of Joe McCarthy.

Another skilled practitioner of the half-truth and innuendo was Richard M. Nixon. And while a review of Nixon’s proclivity for successfully employing the darkest side of politics as the means to win elections and defeat his political opponents is another story for another time, we all know where this approach to power led for Senator McCarthy and President Nixon—an eventual ticket to disgrace and political demise.

Newly minted Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) would do well to learn the lessons of these predecessors as he embarks on his own public career, one he has apparently chosen to build using the dark political arts of innuendo and smear.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

That’s how it’s always been, Rick, and how it forever shall be. That is, certain politicians (of whichever party in whatever country) using the “dark arts” for nothing other than personal gain and power.

In a weird way, I can understand why they would resort to such tactics. It’s the nature of the beast.

What I cannot, for the life of me, get my head around is how the public fall for such lies and deceptions and vote these people into power. And not only vote for them but then continue to vehemently support them. I’m looking forward to reading further comments to your article. It may provide some clues.

When someone, such as yourself, can’t even confront the reality of Barack Obama’s spending record and debt accumulation, why would anyone grant a single strand of credence to anything else you have to say on such related matters of political significance?

That’s what is great about America. You are not required to believe anything I say. However, when your argument pertaining to a particular piece is completely devoid of any chalenges to the truth of the piece (you say absolutely nothing about anything I have written on Senator Cruz), you should understand that you negate any value your comment might have in that regard.

“The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.” ― Adolf Hitler

I really don’t like bringing up Hitler in any situation because he was insane but this is where the strategy comes from and why it was abhorred in the 1950′s. The country had just fought in a world war to make sure that guilt by association was not forever.

I must admit, I have to agree with your response to my comment. However, as a conservative, I am a fervent believer in analyzing political matters through the lens of historical perspective as I examine the relevant empirical data. In this particular situation, history has taught me that those on the misguided left are very rarely persuaded by facts and empirical evidence so why should I waste my time trying to change someone’s perspective on a matter when they are blinded by ideology.

I don’t see how this comment is any more relevant. And if you go into the process of reading a column I-or anyone else- might write as already incorrect due to your perception of me as being a part of the ‘misguided left’, why would you bother reading it in the first place? While I appreciate all readers (well, most of them), can you not see how your comment reveals that maybe it could be you who is being blinded by ideology? After all, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. And yet you have determined that anyone who takes a positon that is to the left of your own is ‘misguided’- hardly a prescription for learning anything or contemplating another approach to solving a problem. I have to say that your comment is the actual epitome of being blinded by ideology when you cannot even hear an opposing point of view without discounting it before you’ve even taken the trouble to get the point. What is interesting is that, most (not all) who read me on a regular basis and do so with an open mind, tend to come to the conclusion that there is very little about me that is ‘ideological’. Indeed, I find ideology a terrible waste of time that is typically employed as an easy way out for people who want to root for one team or another without doing the hard work of educating themselves on an issue. And, so you know, I have- in print and on numerous occasions- taken the progressive side of an argument to task for this type of behavior. Finally, I can’t help but note that you still have not challenged anything I wrote in this particular article.

You say you want me to point out or challenge something you have stated in your article? Ok. Most simply what I challenge are your assumptions. Why do you assume that you are privy to the exact same intelligence/information as Senator Cruz? Is it unreasonable to think that he might be privy to additional intelligence, which inspired him to ask the supposedly unethical, provocative questions?

“It is at a minimum relevant to know if that $200,000 that he deposited in his bank account came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly from North Korea. I have no evidence that it is or isn’t.”

He has fully admitted to being unethical provocative questions about a man who has TWO purple hearts. There is nothing there except a good man who has done his best for this country. I disagree with the man politically and I may have issues with his management issues but those aren’t being brought up enough to warrant this.